Top Law Schools

According to ABA generated statistics (see here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html), JD enrollment for the following ethnic categories for the 2011-2012 school year are as follows:

Black or African American: 10,452
Asian: 10,415
All Hispanic: 11,027

These numbers reflect the total number of students enrolled in legal education programs at ABA accredited institutions, according to ABA-collected statistics.

With "ALL" hispanic taken aggregately, I can understand why some (i.e. Mexican American) are given URM status. Why aren't Asians considered underrepresented minorities if Black/African Americans are, yet they outnumber Asians? Further, some Asian backgrounds (i.e. Laos, Hmong, Filipino) have significantly smaller numbers of enrollment. Why aren't these groups given the same consideration as Hispanic subgroups that are underrepresented?

U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.

As a percentage of population vs percentage of law school students:
Black: 12.6% v 7.2%
Latino: 16.4% v 5.8%
Asian: 4.8% v. 7.8%

So basically, to make law school representative of the general population, there should be almost twice as many black people, 3 times as many latinos, and about half as many asians as there are right now

Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.

I understand that, but this is URM for law school admissions purposes. Higher education is a blanket and the statistics are not equivalent for those pursuing a legal education. The published data shows that they are in fact underrepresnted in law school, so why wouldn't they be extended the same consideration as ethnic groups with the same numbers?

rmp wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.

I understand that, but this is URM for law school admissions purposes. Higher education is a blanket and the statistics are not equivalent for those pursuing a legal education. The published data shows that they are in fact underrepresnted in law school, so why wouldn't they be extended the same consideration as ethnic groups with the same numbers?

See my post above. asians are in fact overrepresented in law schools.
Look at percentages, not absolute numbers

Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.

dingbat wrote:As a percentage of population vs percentage of law school students:
Black: 12.6% v 7.2%
Latino: 16.4% v 5.8%
Asian: 4.8% v. 7.8%

So basically, to make law school representative of the general population, there should be almost twice as many black people, 3 times as many latinos, and about half as many asians as there are right now

TITCR

Trolling?

ManOfTheMinute wrote:Trolling?

Judging by post history, probably just stupid

rmp wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:U stands for underrepresented. Asians aren't underrepresented in higher education, they are over represented.

I understand that, but this is URM for law school admissions purposes. Higher education is a blanket and the statistics are not equivalent for those pursuing a legal education. The published data shows that they are in fact underrepresnted in law school, so why wouldn't they be extended the same consideration as ethnic groups with the same numbers?

Like Dingbat said, they are overrepresented even in law school. But even if they weren't, why should law schools only look at law school only, instead of higher education in general.

Are you really so stupid you just compared raw numbers?

dingbat wrote:

ManOfTheMinute wrote:Trolling?

Judging by post history, probably just stupid

Uncalled for.

BlaqBella wrote:

dingbat wrote:

ManOfTheMinute wrote:Trolling?

Judging by post history, probably just ignorant

Uncalled for.

better?

The only thing I would add is that the category "Asians" can be problematic. While Asians as a group are overrepresented in the field of law, treating them a simple monolithic group ignores the diversity that exists between various ethnic groups. Something has to be said for a family that is able to move to the United States voluntarily versus ending up in the country as political refugees.

I once read this really interesting article by a researcher interested in education reform who noted that the structural problems affecting Southeast Asians (Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, etc.) were often ignored by elected officials at the state and city level. She never really listed one cause in particular about why the educational needs of this group weren't being met, but she looked at a host of problems (general apathy from officials, model-minority stereotypes at play, socioeconomic status, language barriers, lack of knowledge about the political system) that collectively were working against this group.

..

acrossthelake wrote:It wasn't until law school that I found such a large collection of bright people who were so terrible at basic basic math.

What is basic basic math?

rmp wrote:According to ABA generated statistics (see here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html), JD enrollment for the following ethnic categories for the 2011-2012 school year are as follows:

Black or African American: 10,452
Asian: 10,415
All Hispanic: 11,027

These numbers reflect the total number of students enrolled in legal education programs at ABA accredited institutions, according to ABA-collected statistics.

With "ALL" hispanic taken aggregately, I can understand why some (i.e. Mexican American) are given URM status. Why aren't Asians considered underrepresented minorities if Black/African Americans are, yet they outnumber Asians? Further, some Asian backgrounds (i.e. Laos, Hmong, Filipino) have significantly smaller numbers of enrollment. Why aren't these groups given the same consideration as Hispanic subgroups that are underrepresented?

LOL at taking raw numbers, and not proportions.

You do have a somewhat valid point with the Asian subgroup thing, although I'm not sure that groups like the Filipinos are, in fact, underrepresented in higher education/law school. Also, maybe the Filipino/Laos/Hmong/Cambodian subgroup is too small to justify giving a URM boost.

..

acrossthelake wrote:

dingbat wrote:

acrossthelake wrote:It wasn't until law school that I found such a large collection of bright people who were so terrible at basic basic math.

What is basic basic math?

A linear equation with only one unknown variable to solve for. A friend said he saw it take 15 minutes for some associates to solve it, when it should only have taken 15 seconds.

Wasn't that seventh grade?

acrossthelake wrote:

dingbat wrote:

acrossthelake wrote:It wasn't until law school that I found such a large collection of bright people who were so terrible at basic basic math.

What is basic basic math?

A linear equation with only one unknown variable to solve for. A friend said he saw it take 15 minutes for some associates to solve it, when it should only have taken 15 seconds.

This is why I enjoy the rule of hand

I wish Asians were considered URMs but I have to admit we're generally over represented, especially Asian males... It does suck that you have to score a few% higher for the same schools though all your life...

Suralin wrote: You do have a somewhat valid point with the Asian subgroup thing, although I'm not sure that groups like the Filipinos are, in fact, underrepresented in higher education/law school. Also, maybe the Filipino/Laos/Hmong/Cambodian subgroup is too small to justify giving a URM boost.

That may well be the case with Filipinos. I only argue for a more nuanced understanding of the systematic obstacles that can negatively impact particular sub-groups. Those nuances are lost when Asians are treated as simply one large group, thereby limiting the effectiveness of AA. White women and white men both share white privilege, but AA recognizes that white women do face discrimination because of their gender. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

Native Americans receive a boost in the admissions process even though they comprise a small part of the population of the United States. I do admit that I don't know the numerical breakdown for specific ethnic groups in the US, so your point concerning that they are too small to warrant a boost may be valid.

bosmer88 wrote:

Suralin wrote: You do have a somewhat valid point with the Asian subgroup thing, although I'm not sure that groups like the Filipinos are, in fact, underrepresented in higher education/law school. Also, maybe the Filipino/Laos/Hmong/Cambodian subgroup is too small to justify giving a URM boost.

That may well be the case with Filipinos. I only argue for a more nuanced understanding of the systematic obstacles that can negatively impact particular sub-groups. Those nuances are lost when Asians are treated as simply one large group, thereby limiting the effectiveness of AA. White women and white men both share white privilege, but AA recognizes that white women do face discrimination because of their gender. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

Native Americans receive a boost in the admissions process even though they comprise a small part of the population of the United States. I do admit that I don't know the numerical breakdown for specific ethnic groups in the US, so your point concerning that they are too small to warrant a boost may be valid.

It is simply too inefficient to begin delving into smaller units. The statistical nightmare it would create would be more trouble than its worth. It would also make multiple identifications even more troublesome than racial categories. You would have to then so subdivide all other racial categories and figure out what types of whites (ooo he's Basque!!!!!), AA, etc. into the same. All and all, that's why they don't do it. It's unworkable.

stillwater wrote: It is simply too inefficient to begin delving into smaller units. The statistical nightmare it would create would be more trouble than its worth. It would also make multiple identifications even more troublesome than racial categories. You would have to then so subdivide all other racial categories and figure out what types of whites (ooo he's Basque!!!!!), AA, etc. into the same. All and all, that's why they don't do it. It's unworkable.

I am not talking about delving so much as I am arguing for recognizing these issues have been going on with these groups for quite some time and take them into account. That's it. I am not talking about any other groups, simply Asians.

Asians aren't considered URMs because law schools considered all Asians under the broad umbrella of Asian. Chinese and Indians are overrepresented in law schools. However, many Asians from Southeast Asian number are significantly underrepresented in law school. In fact, the educational attainment of Vietnamese Americans is among the lowest in America. Many Vietnamese are recent immigrants and are relatively poor. Many Asian students from underrepresented Asian countries go to low income school districts with blacks and Hispanics. Some of these Asian students are refugees. Yet, because they are "Asian," these folks don't get the benefit of AA.

On the other hand, an African American or Hispanic student living in a 5 million dollar home who could afford to take Powerscore prep gets AA benefits over a poor Asian/white guy.

I support AA completely, but we should recognize that people of all races encounter adversity and economic challenges.

Oh goodness, not this again!

BlaqBella wrote:Oh goodness, not this again!

Not what again?

I think this is actually a valid question that has been discussed civilly thus far.

bosmer88 wrote:Not what again?

This train of thought:

On the other hand, an African American or Hispanic student living in a 5 million dollar home who could afford to take Powerscore prep gets AA benefits over a poor Asian/white guy.

Sounds like whining/complaining to me. It's beating a dead horse...in the URM forum of all places.